The Song of Songs in Its Canonical Framework

D. A. Carson says this about how to understand the Song of Songs:

Although some have denied that this book is about sexual love in any primary sense, but is an allegory of either the love between Yahweh and Israel or between Christ and the church, I doubt it.  So many details of Song of Songs are so explicitly human and sexual (all the more so when the ancient Semitic symbolism is appreciated) that to argue that the meaning of the text is allegorical is unlikely.  Moreover, there are many parallels in other love poetry in ancient near eastern Wisdom Literature, so that one must conclude the genre was well known. 

On the other hand, after fully acknowledging the human and sexual love that this book celebrates—for God has made us human and sexual, and Wisdom Literature often focuses on the glory of the created order—we may not be far off the mark if we also see, within the canonical framework, a typological connection with God and Israel, with Christ and the church. For that is a theme repeatedly picked up in both Testaments (see, for instance, Hosea, or Rev. 21).

At some later date, as God allows, since I think Carson is on track, I hope to provide reasons from within Scripture itself why the Song should be understood typologically within its canonical context.  I also hope to work out in a rudimentary way an approach to the Song that steers clear of two extremes: the first I will call the literalist approach (common today, especially among scholars); and the second, the allegorist approach.  I think the swing from the allegorist interpretation (dominant throughout the history of the church and the history of Jewish interpretation) to the literalist interpretation is intriguing and even perhaps telling.

I suspect that part of the reason for the radical shift has to do with both the influence of modernism and the rise of critical scholarship.  And modernism and critical scholarship both bring baggage and presuppositions that may prevent handling the Song as intended by the divine author (which is not to say in an allegorical manner). 

Now, while the allegorical approach does not deal evenhandedly with the text (nor does the literalistic approach, even though that is the claim!), it does appreciate something of the function of the book in its canonical context.  Yet typology, not allegory, is the right description of what the Song is actually doing.  So I would argue for both a literal and typological approach.  This would avoid two common extremes and appreciate what both the allegorical and literalistic approaches have going for them.  Seeing the Song in the first instance as human love poetry does full justice to a straightforward reading of the text; seeing the typological elements in the text does justice to the function of the Song within the canon, yet without the wildness and lack of canonical controls of the allegorical approach.  And in this regard, allusions and thematic links are crucial.  But more on this some other post.